What use is theology?

Recently I was asked what positive contribution theology made to ministry. Of course, there must be some sympathy with the question. Theology can often seem dense and confusing. It feels like it takes understanding the Christian faith beyond the grasp of the average person. It seems to reside in a world of dispute and academia.

And evidence seems to support the criticism. Studies have shown that there is an inverse relationship between the number of years of formal theological study and the growth rate of the churches those professional ministers lead. For example, in countries where access to formal theological training is very limited, e.g. China and South America, the church is exploding.

Yet there are also counter examples. Pastors like John Piper and Tim Keller in the USA are former seminary professors who have been very successful pastors while using their theological training.

What do we mean by theology?
Formally, theology is the study of God (theos). God is the ultimate reality. Our challenge in ministry is to live and lead in conformity with that reality.

How do we discover reality?
The fallacy of modernism is that reality is discovered using only the scientific method. As the limitations of this approach were discerned we fell into the second fallacy, that of post-modernism - which held that knowledge of reality is lost and all we are left with is a collection of personal perspectives which are equally valid.

The Biblical position is that God (as ultimate reality) has revealed himself to us through his written word, the Bible. Although our understanding of that revelation (and more general revelation) will always be limited and imperfect, we can approach an approximation of that reality by engaging with that revelation.

The term "hermentuetical spiral" refers to the process whereby we propose a theory of reality based on our present level of understanding and then test that theory in light of the revelation. Our theory will be affirmed or adjusted based on the feedback we receive and that will allow us to propose other theories. Over time our understanding shifts more in line with revelation, approaching absolute reality like an asymtote.

The Community of Discoverers
We are not the first people to seek to discover reality, or to live in light of it. Other Christians have worked hard at advancing and understanding the revelation too. Some have summarised their findings into propositional statements that are designed to reduce the complexity of the whole picture of reality into simple points that we can grasp quickly.

These propositional statements are like a quick sketch of a full rich oil painting. They reflect the true picture but they do not completely contain the full richness and majesty of the whole painting.

In Student Life we summarise the gospel (in the Knowing God Personally - KGP - booklet) into four simple points which we cover in 12 small pages. But the four questions addressed by these points (the nature and purpose of God, the nature and purpose of human beings, the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ, and how we are to respond to the previous three points) have occupied the most brilliant minds for centuries and have produced hundreds of thousands of pages of writing. Their efforts were to try to portray that reality with greater depth and clarity.

Theology missing the point
Theology that ignores the issue of how we live or lead in light of reality misses the point of why we do theology. That is not to say that every theological discussion must be immediately applied. There is great value in having academics work hard at refining some point of theology and correcting other misconceptions which have distorted or misrepresented reality.

Personalising Theology
But in ministry, theology is the study of reality and must be applied to life.

Each of us who have shared the KGP with someone else know that the ideal presentation is not one that sticks verbatim to reading through the propositional statements written on the page. We constantly ask ourselves the question, "how do I personalise this presentation to connect best with the person I am sharing with?". That leads us to adding our own explanations or illustrations of the various points.

Assuming we are confident that the propositional statements accurately reflect God's revelation, the question becomes, "how do we know our additions to the presentation are accurate representations?" The answer is that we must know more than the propositional statements. Our grasp of the big picture must be richer and deeper than the simple statements in the booklet.

The more of the picture beyond the booklet we know, the more confident we can be when we adapt our presentation of the simple concepts to the present situation.

The Danger of Theology
The danger of having a grasp of the big picture is that we try to convey all we see or know as we present the gospel. This is the same problem that teachers have all the time. After hours and hours of study, a good teacher knows far more about what they are speaking about than they will have time to cover in a talk. They have to be selective about what to present so that it meets the needs and abilities of the audience.

The simple sketch picture, as I describe the booklet, is very useful for giving someone a quick overview of reality. We cannot lose that simplicity, no matter how expert we become in the whole picture.

For example, if I, as an amateur, want to understand how my computer works I am most helped by someone who describes to me the various components - the mother board, CPU, hard drive, keyboard, screen, etc. - and how they work together, but who doesn't go into all the technical jargon comparing bit speeds, bios logic and pixel frame rates.

Theology for Ministry Leaders
Those who take on responsiblity for directing a group of people in how to live in light of God's reality must necessarily have a greater grasp of that reality than the average person. Without a clear picture of reality they could lead the whole group astray - with wrong thinking or wrong living.

Also, leaders are bombarded with lots of pressure from many different sources that seek to influence their direction. Those sources may be secular societal pressures - values of material prosperity, academic success, cultural compatability. They may be from other Christian organisations who seek like-minded partners in ministry, or seek to market their ministry product, or seek validation of their own experiences.

How do leaders decide the value of various options or directions? It must come from a rich and deep appreciation of the greater reality.

I have experienced this in various ways over the past 15 years. When I first encountered the seeker service approach to evangelism, I was quite taken. I wanted to replicate that in my own area of influence. As I attempted it, though, I encountered the reality that the results were significantly different. That led me to review my understanding of the seeker sensitive approach to ministry and modify my application of those principles to my current context.

Also, when someone criticises the Knowing God Personally booklet, which occurs regularly, I am able to respond to those criticisms because my knowledge extends beyond the pages of the booklet. I am also sensitive to when someone uses the booklet inappropriately - for example, assumes that just because someone "prays the prayer" at the back of the booklet they are "saved".

So far I have said that theology is the description of reality with reference to God's revelation through the Bible. And that is the primary source and ultimate measurement of reality. However, the doctrine of general revelation encourages us to explore other avenues that also inform our perception of reality. (All these other avenues must, ultimately, be verified, where possible, by the Bible). Other avenues include sociology, anthropology, history, organisational theory, etc.

A good leader will have engaged with as much information about reality as possible and processed it in light of biblical revelation and moved a significant way towards approximating ultimate reality in many of the areas that their leadership affects. This is obviously a process that continues for a life-time and the more a leader does it the better their leadership is.

Conclusion
Is theology useful for minsitry? It is, and it is essential for leaders. But it is not theology for theology's sake. It is theology that leads us to a greater appreciation of the one who is ultimate reality and how he has designed the world to work.

Why Is Leadership The "In-Thing"?

It appears that, over the past 10 to 20 years, leadership has become the one big thing that has attracted so much attention in evangelical circles. Why is that? Is it a good thing, a bad thing or neutral?

Leadership Focus
A quick search of Amazon.com or Christianbook.com reveal dozens and dozens of books written on the subject of leadership. There are even books being written about the books written on leadership. Adding to this are the conferences - some with world-wide followings - that emphasise the development of leadership. I personally have benefited significantly from Bill Hybel's teaching and example and the WillowCreek Leadership Summit. I also subscribe to plenty of email newsletters, etc. that are sent regularly on the topic of leadership.

So, why is leadership the subject of such attention?
Leadership is the art of moving a group of people from their present position to a desirable future. Key elements include exercising influence, direction setting, strategic planning, and change management.

It is this last element that provides the clue to its present popularity. Change is a constant reality in western society. There are plenty of ways of understanding the changes we have been through over the past 50 years. We have moved from an industrial society to an information society. Our national boundaries have become increasingly porous with the globalisation of media and technology. The increasing speed at which life is lived strains relationships, breaks down communities and creates a tribal mindset.

The church has changed from a rural village (parish) concept to a suburban (regional) concept. [Over 80% of Australian now live in the major cities.] These changes were led by highly skilled leaders, such as Bill Hybels and Rick Warren.

The shift of our culture, through multi-culturalism, from Christendom to a post-Christian reality has produced a new generation of leaders arguing for the development of "missional" churches in this "emerging" culture.

So, as I have implied above, leadership is the art of helping the community of the church negotiate the process of change to maintain relevance and connection to the cultural context in which it lives and serves.

When cultural change is fairly minimal, leadership is not greatly needed. Other spiritual gifts - e.g. teaching, pastoral care - come to the fore. But as cultural change occurs leadership is the gift that is needed to keep advancing the Kingdom of God.

Is it good, bad or indifferent?
Teaching may be done well, poorly or indifferently. The style of teaching may be the issue, or the content may be the issue. It's the same with leadership.

Leadership is very demanding within the Christian church, and many people fail to do it well.

Some have an issue with leadership style - they are domineering or vacillating or inappropriate or uncertain of the legitimacy of leadership itself. [Some of this can be traced back to the weaknesses of various church governance approaches.] Several books, including Hybel's "Courageous Leadership" identify different leadership styles. The key to good leadership is using the appropriate leadership style in the appropriate context.

A "command and conquer" style of leadership is appropriate in a team where the leader is vastly more experienced and the deadline is urgent. A "consultative" style of leadership is appropriate when leading an experienced group of peers. But if you switched the situations and didn't switch the leadership styles, both would be inappropriate.

Some leaders have an issue with content. And these are far more dangerous. Like attractive false teachers, false leaders can take a lot of people in a totally wrong direction.

The first sort of bad leader is the one who uses their influence to maintain the status quo within the church when the cultural context surrounding the church is changing. This leader doesn't prevent change because the church will eventually succumb to the surrounding forces. All they do is postpone the pain - sometimes until after their death!

Another bad leader is the one whose firm convictions - on how their church needs to function or what they need to believe - are actually at odds with spiritual reality. No one's views are totally "right" because we are all fallen creatures. The process of sanctification is as much an alignment of our thinking with God's truth as it is a process of aligning our actions with God's moral requirements. Therefore, we need to have convictions about revealed truth and have a humble attitude towards others who hold different views to ours. Our goal as leaders is to keep moving our understanding (knowledge, instinct, etc.) towards the perfect truth of God. I believe that this involves theological reflection, cultural analysis, historical perspective and strategic formulation.

A third bad leader might be driven by subconscious motives for self-fulfillment, power, status, etc. It is wise for leaders to examine themselves, identify their potential "darksides" and question their own motives when sailing close to the wind. Every leader has a darkside. A darkside is simply the opposite of their greatest strength. For example, a firm, visionary leader has the potential to trample over people. Knowing your greatest weakness allows you to compensate when operating as a leader. Spiritual disciplines can be very helpful in combating issues of pride, lust, seeking approval or popularity.

Conclusion
Leadership is a gift God has given the churches to allow his kingdom to advance most effectively during times of change. It may be used well or poorly, but it deserves the increased attention it has received over the past decade or two.

The First Rule for a Team Leader

I was recently asked by a soon-to-be team leader for advice on how to lead a team.

My first rule is: keep your team happy.

Why is this the most important rule? Without a happy team you wont be able to do good ministry. If the team is in conflict - with each other or with you - they wont be able to put good energy into their ministry to students. Also, students they meet may end up loyal to the team member, but will have real problems with the whole ministry. That makes it impossible to develop student leaders for your ministry. And then you wont establish a multiplying movement, or recruit future workers.

How do you keep your team happy?
The most common approach is to avoid conflict. But this is ultimately self-defeating. Conflict that is avoided simply simmers beneath the surface preventing genuine intimacy and appreciation of each other's differences. Unresolved conflict causes team members to feel like their opinions/feelings are not valued.

A team will be really happy when each team member feels like they are known and making a unique contribution to an overall worthwhile goal.

To accomplish this goal, some team building exercises focussing on personality profiles and spiritual gift tests, life stories and passions can be helpful. These then need to be incoporated into the ministry strategic plan. The roles and functions assigned to each team member should allow them to spend significant time operating in areas of their strength. [Of course, every job has elements that you just don't want to do].

I have been blessed with an exceptionally easy team in which to apply this. I have been able to concentrate on the visionary leadership and networking. Other team members have been the outgoing "people-gatherers". Some are the reflective "teacher"-types. Some are administrative gurus, project managers or computer specialists. Each has contributed in unique ways. And because we know each other fairly well, we are able to allow each person to contribute in their unique areas of strength.

The danger of this approach is two-fold. Firstly, team members can get stale after a while if they are stuck doing the same thing over and over again. But they might also feel trapped because the whole team relies on them doing what they do.

Secondly, the team member may fail to develop in new areas outside of their existing strengths. For example, an administratively strong person may take on all the administrative roles but fail to keep engaging with students evangelistically. Over time, their spiritual life might fade as they get caught up in the pragmatic aspects of the ministry.

I have resolved this dilemma by encouraging each team member to have a part of their role which is like a "hobby". Although 80% of their time can be spent on the core business, the hobby is a bonus. It can contribute to the ministry in a non-essential way. It isn't an area of priority, but it is like a special or unique characteristic that adds flavour to the ministry. It might be organising a sport team, designing a website, preaching for another ministry/church or writing a book. As the team member experiences refreshment and success in their hobby it helps them stay happy and productive in their core business.

In conclusion, a campus coordinators first priority is to keep their team happy. It is only from this base that the rest of the ministry - the vision, strategy, win, build, train, send - can grow.